Mata v. Anderson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6614
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Mata sued the City of Farmington and officers, alleging First Amendment retaliatory prosecution and Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution related to prior events.
- In 2002 Mata and family alleged misconduct by Officer Briseno; a 2005 settlement extinguished claims against released parties including Sergeant Anderson.
- Sgt. Anderson filed a criminal complaint against Mata in 2005 for criminal libel, later amended to include harassment and stalking.
- Mata was not arrested; he faced misdemeanor proceedings, was convicted in magistrate court, and was later acquitted on some counts in district court.
- In 2009 Mata filed a federal complaint with three First Amendment retaliation and three Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution counts; district court granted summary judgment to Anderson.
- Court held the First Amendment claims accrued in February 2005 and were released by the November 2005 Settlement, and the Fourth Amendment claim failed for lack of seizure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did First Amendment retaliation claims accrue? | Mata contends accrual occurred later than February 2005. | Accrual occurred in February 2005 when amended complaint was filed. | Accrual in February 2005. |
| Does continuing-violation doctrine apply to § 1983 retaliation? | Continues violations after filing support ongoing liability. | Only continual acts trigger doctrine; Mata alleges one act. | Doctrine not applicable; accrual in February 2005. |
| Did the November 2005 Settlement preclude First Amendment claims? | Settlement covers only prior actions; not releases. | Settlement broad release; covers all related claims, including First Amendment. | Settlement released First Amendment claims. |
| Are Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claims barred or fail for lack of seizure? | Mata was seized by travel restrictions constituting Fourth Amendment seizure. | No seizure; Mata was not arrested or imprisoned; travel limits are not a seizure. | No seizure; Fourth Amendment claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fratus v. Deland, 49 F.3d 673 (10th Cir.1995) (federal accrual governs 1983; accrual when injury known)
- Workman v. Jordan, 32 F.3d 475 (10th Cir.1994) (First Amendment accrues when plaintiff knows of injury)
- Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790 (10th Cir.2008) (malicious-prosecution accrual; favorable termination rule for § 1983 differs)
- Becker v. Kroll, 494 F.3d 904 (10th Cir.2007) (First Amendment retaliatory-prosecution does not require favorable termination)
- Mark V, Inc. v. Mellekas, 114 N.M. 778, 845 P.2d 1232 (N.M. 1993) (extrinsic evidence may be used to interpret contract ambiguity)
- Bergman v. United States, 751 F.2d 314 (10th Cir.1984) (continuous ill effects not continuing violation; trigger by continual unlawful acts)